I was driving into work the other day when an interesting article came on the radio. 2'47" through here on the Today Programme. The BBC were discussing the topic of the "lack of diversity in medical research". My ears pricked up as I wondered how they were going to handle this.

Most people who take part in drug trials are "of European ancestry", explained Mishal Husain. That's an interesting way to put it, right off the bat, because that's going to mean nothing in a few years since the European "federation" is being rapidly Islamised and London increasingly resembles more a Third World city than anything English. She clearly meant "caucasian", or "white" but a euphemism was used instead.

The problem is, she continued, that "in some cases that leads to drugs that are dangerous for some groups". White man's fault? Probably. "Some groups" anyway, this probably means black people, but again such a term could not be used.

Somebody called Sara Abdullah joined Mishal in the studio to discuss this problem. She explained that the (voluntary) trials are "basically dominated by white men".

It was about time those evil white men showed up! You know, the ones who are largely making the drugs and who keep going out to help in war zones and end up being beheaded. They're "dominating" the trials - yet this is a dangerous thing to do. It takes either great altruism or need for money, so one would think the immigrants would be running in there. Somehow this must be the white man's fault anyway - let's see how.

Ms Abdullah continued to explain that drugs which pass for the whites can be dangerous in black and Hispanic populations. What?! Hold it right there. This is where the BBC should have interrupted immediately. This woman is obviously some kind of racist: she has suggested - on air - that there are fundamental biological differences between races. I mean, if that is allowed to pass then, who knows, people might start claiming that other factors such as psychological inclination might generally differ between races to some degree too, and that my friends is a no-go area; that's thoughtcrime for medical research and even in casual conversation, utterly regardless of whether or not there is any truth to it. Indeed we must never find out if there is any truth to it.

So this was pretty outrageous, but Mishal let it pass. Why would she do that on this occasion? That's pretty simple: it's because, in this particular instance, the problem was causing suffering for the "minority" groups.

Ms Adbullah continued by saying that "we need to try harder in making sure research reflects people outside the university door". Wow, lots more to get into here. Yet more racism, it seems. Is she saying that there are no black or Hispanic medical staff? If not, why not? (Discrimination, of course - by those white males again.) Was she challenged on this remark? No. And why should medical staff "try harder"? Is it not the fault of the black and Hispanic people if they are not volunteering for these projects? Has anybody thought of that? Why is nobody responsible for their own actions (or lack thereof) any more?

How can this problem be addressed, asked Mishal. Well, it's entirely the fault of the medical profession, explained Ms Abdullah. We need to do more "community engagement" (nice use of a PC jargon) and, even better, we need to make sure there is more "diversity" (bonus points) among the teams who do the work so that they "frame the questions differently". Hold on, I smell racism again. Why would you need to frame the questions differently? Is she indeed now somehow saying that the blacks and Hispanics are different to white people psychologically? I thought we were all the same.

Mishal interrupted and diverted it away from this subject but Ms Abdullah continued to mention that researchers are finding it "difficult to get the grants" to conduct research into the area of differences between races (not surprising), but still "basically", she said, we need to "buck our ideas up". She then managed to segway the discussion into feminism, just when I thought there was going to be no time for her to do that, by speaking about "Women in Science". She said animal research is dominated by male animals, cell research by male cells and women are done down because of this.

Thus a discussion was managed to be had all about certain groups losing out through their own doing, and yet the finger of blame was never at any point remotely pointed in their direction, entirely because of PC.